Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 975 (PAT)

Daulat Kuar v. State Of Bihar

2006-10-31

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, BARIN GHOSH

body2006
Judgment Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. On 15th April, 1983, a Notification was published whereby and under it was disclosed that by an order dated 22nd March, 1993 the riayat of the land in question was found to have the land in question in excess of the ceiling limit and accordingly such land became surplus land liable to vest in the State Government, By two orders dated 23rd March, 1984 and 24th March, 1984, such excess land was distributed by the State Government to people who were entitled to have such land. On 12th May, 1983, appellants - writ petitioners applied under Form XIX prescribed by Rule 25 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 in terms of the directions contained in sec. 22 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961. In that the appellants writ petitioners held out that the petitioners no. 1 & 8 are under riayats of 9.82 acres of such surplus land and petitioner no. 9 is the under riayat of approximately 11 acres of such surplus land. By that application, the petitioners wanted the State Government to recognize petitioners as occupancy riayats of the subject surplus land. It appears that on 16th December, 1983, the Circle Inspector submitted a report and, on the basis of the said report, on 1st July, 1985, the Collector held out that the petitioners are under riayats of the lands in question and settlement of the lands in terms of the orders dated 23rd March, 1984 and 24th March, 1984 is inappropriate and should be recalled. It appears that the Collector while deciding the application so made by the petitioners did not determine the amount payable in respect of the lands in question by the petitioners to the State Government in terms of the provisions contained in sec. 22 of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules. It is claimed that the petitioners approached the Collector for grant of Parwana in their favour and also applied for settlement of compensation payable by them, but those were not considered and decided. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition and thereby, amongst others, challenged the orders passed on 23rd March, 1984 and 24th March, 1984 settling the land in question. Only on the ground of delay, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 2. There is no dispute that sec. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition and thereby, amongst others, challenged the orders passed on 23rd March, 1984 and 24th March, 1984 settling the land in question. Only on the ground of delay, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition. 2. There is no dispute that sec. 22 of the Act authorizes an under riayat to retain surplus land as occupancy riayat subject to payment in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period to the State Government the amount, specified in the Schedule to the Act. Rule 25 of the Rules directs an under riayat to apply in Form No. LC XIX within a period of three months from the date on which the land is declared to be surplus land or within such further period as may be allowed by the Collector. Rule 25 further provides that when the application is allowed, the under riayat shall pay to the State Government annually for a period of 30 years the amount specified in that behalf in Part-IV of the Schedule to the Act, and at the same time authorizes payment of the same in one instalment or by instalments to be paid on 15th May of each year. 3. Therefore, in law, as and when a person claims to be an under riayat and seeks to retain surplus land as occupancy riayat and for that matter makes an application, such application is required to be decided first before the surplus land can be dealt with. In the instant case, the application of the petitioners was dealt with on 1st July, 1985, although without specifying the amount to be paid, but before that, the surplus land was settled on 23rd March, 1984 and 24th March, 1984. 4. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - petitioners drew our attention to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Swami Bhaskara Nand, Chela Late Sri 108 Swami Param Gayanand Jee V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported In 1993 (1) PLJR 542, for the proposition that it is obligatory on the part of the Collector, while deciding an application made u/s. 22 read with Rule 25, to determine the amount of compensation payable. reported In 1993 (1) PLJR 542, for the proposition that it is obligatory on the part of the Collector, while deciding an application made u/s. 22 read with Rule 25, to determine the amount of compensation payable. In that case too, before the application of the person claiming to be under riayat and seeking to retain the land in question as occupancy riayat was decided finally i.e. by specifying the compensation payable, the surplus land had been settled in favour of others. It was, therefore, submitted that in the instant case too, the Writ Court ought to have directed final disposal of the application made by the petitioners under Sec. 22 of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules by quantifying the amount, of compensation payable, and only on failure to pay such compensation, the settlement as made could be held to be valid. 5. In the case dealt with by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment, as a fact, it was found by the Division Bench that the person, who claimed to be under riayat, was recognized and acknowledged as such by the revenue authority. In the instant case, apart from the report of the Circle Inspector dated 16th December, 1983, there is nothing on record from where a prudent person can opine that any of the appellants was ever recognised as an under riayat in respect of the land in question in terms of the provisions contained in Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. In a situation of this nature, the conscience of the Court will not permit it to undo a thing which has been settled 22 years back. For the reasons as above, we refuse to interfere with the judgment under appeal and dismiss the appeal.